Thursday, 31 March 2016

Reversing the reversal?


A new Bill has passed into English/Welsh law to promote access to innovative medical treatments
This is a new, modified version of Lord Saatchi’s original well-intended, but controversial Medical Innovation Bill
In this new guise, the authorities carry a loaded gun to point at any doctor given that the doctor will remain liable if he/she is found to be negligent in carrying out the innovative treatment
All innovative treatments and outcomes will be recorded in a new Medical Innovation Register that’s effectively a fast-track licensing system for new drugs and those that have been used off-label
The chosen innovative treatment must be supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, i.e. a team of doctors all agreeing on the same course of action
Innovative treatment will typically be off-label use of an existing drug
Sick and vulnerable patients will effectively be test subjects, and their outcomes will inform clinical trials for wider pharma markets
The structure of this Bill has effectively closed the door to natural treatments, whether they be innovative or not
My Comment:

State control of health issues and denial of freedom to explore or integrate non-pharmacological approaches has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the corruption of the State by transnational corporate lobbies – after first subverting and corrupting scientific institutions and media.
The extension of the idea of owning and controlling our biology and environment is the logical outcome of a directed technocratic behaviourism – in which faulty and unworthy broken bio-robots – have to be manually overridden of their own will so as to farm them.
The ‘elitists’ are a ‘power class’ who have corresponding privilege, insider knowledge and protections that they are unwilling to lose – and so no real opening to change a system of maintaining division and control will be allowed – for any crack in the dam would open up more – and the loss of such control is terrifyingly unthinkable and avoided at any cost.
Anecdotally – the film “Cancer is a serious business” that documents coercion and fraud – was raised in discussion in the highest office of the USA – but was simply ‘too big’ to go into or open up. “Too big to fail” is the sense of tares entangling the wheat that dare not be addressed for fear the whole economy and power system as we have known it – disintegrates or ‘goes down’. And of course too many vested interests will move to block or counter any reform.
Regaining our own ‘inner track’ of power has to begin by opening and owning our fears rather than demanding another power ‘save us’ from them. No one else can stop a true willingness to learn; to transform and to heal or reintegrate to a wholeness of being – but the guilted and fearfully split sense of self we are conditioned to normalize and persona-fy is not the basis for such a movement of being. Aligning in a true movement of being is different from fear-fuelled ‘power’ or wilfulness upon life. Listening Within is not mad! It is refusing a false-faced normalcy in hate for a clear and true perspective that can only be had by allowing it in – by receiving. And listening within will include noticing promptings and intuitive recognitions ‘without’ or in the ideas or people or situation we attract into our lives – because we are desirous of a truly integrated outcome – whether we are denied a fullness of cultural exchange or not.


Also from http://anhinternational.org:

Tribeca censorship of "Vaxxed" and how to beat it

My Comment:

Recognize that coercive assertion is hate - no matter what symbols it appeals to for legitimizing itself. No matter what forms it adopts. For it listens not and cares not for anything but its own blinded sense of self interest.

The compulsive dictate of a hateful intent is not recognized by those who believe it protects them - or 'others' in such ways as empowers them. But is ascribed to those who would bring it to light and to being healed - and then righteously directed at them as if in retaliation.

"What we believe - and insist you also believe (or conform your behaviour to), cannot be brought to question - or we accuse you of crimes against humanity - for our belief is saving lives while anything that contradicts it puts them all at risk".

Clearly this is an issue of power to 'medicate' people without their truly informed consent - because without discussion, there can be neither information accountable to truth or meaningful consent.

If there is such overwhelming science to back up the claims of the vaxing of otherwise healthy people for diseases they may still contract and spread to others - with actual risks that are downplayed or airbrushed from the record - and a legal system designed to release them from accountability - why is it asserted with such force as if it is fragile and easily undermined? Because it is?

No comments:

Post a Comment